RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/4 70 
14 November 2022 
(22-8280) Page: 1/13 
Dispute Settlement Body  
23 September 2022  
 
  
  MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 23 SEPTEMBER 20221 
 Chair person : H.E.  Dr Athaliah Lesiba MOLOKOMME (Botswana )  
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairperson  welcomed all delegations participating 
in the present  meeting of the DSB both in -person and remotely . She wished to recall a few technical 
instructions regarding th e virtual participation of delegates . If a Member was unable to take the floor 
during the me eting because of a technical issue, the delegation could inform herself or the 
Secretariat and that Agenda item would remain open until the delegation could take the floor. In the 
alternative, the item would remain open temporarily, the meeting would proce ed to the next Agenda 
item, and the DSB would revert to the open item after the technical issue had been resolved. If a 
technical issue remained unresolved, the delegation had the option to send the statement to the 
Secretariat with the request that it be read out by the Secretariat on behalf of that delegation during 
the meeting so that the statement could be reflected in the minutes of the meeting;  and (ii) the 
Chairperson  made a short statement regarding item 4 of the proposed Agenda of the 28  April 2021 
DSB meeting pertaining to the DS574 dispute. She said that, as Members recalled, that matter had 
been removed from the proposed Agenda to allow time for the Chair 's consultations with each 
interested party regarding that Agenda item. At the present meetin g, she wished to inform 
delegations that , like the previous Chair of the DSB,  she continued to consult with each interested 
party on this matter and that those consultations were ongoing . 
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agend a. 
 
 
Table of Contents  
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  2 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ .............  3 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  3 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European Union  ................................ ................................ ...... 3 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea: Status report by the United States  ................................ ..........................  4 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China: Status report by the United States  ................................ ...............  4 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status 
report by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  5 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/4 70 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA; ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; 
PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BURKINA FASO; 
BURUNDI; CABO VERDE; CAMBODIA; CAMEROON; CANADA; CENTRAL AFRICAN 
REPUBLIC; CHAD; CHILE; CHINA; COLOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA RICA; CÔTE 
D'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO; DJIBOUTI; DOMINIC A; 
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC; ECUADOR; EGYPT; EL SALVADOR; ESWATINI; THE 
EUROPEAN UNION; GABON; THE GAMBIA; GHANA; GUATEMALA; GUINEA; GUINEA 
BISSAU; HONDURAS; HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; INDIA; INDONESIA; 
ISRAEL; KAZAKHSTAN; KENYA; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; LESOTHO; LIEC HTENSTEIN; 
MADAGASCAR; MALAWI; MALAYSIA; MALDIVES; MALI; MAURITANIA; 
MAURITIUS; MEXICO; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA; MOROCCO; MOZAMBIQUE; 
NAMIBIA; NEPAL; NEW ZEALAND; NICARAGUA; NIGER; NIGERIA; NORTH 
MACEDONIA; NORWAY; PAKISTAN; PANAMA; PARAGUAY; PERU; THE 
PHILIPP INES; QATAR; RUSSIAN FEDERATION; RWANDA; SAINT KITTS AND 
NEVIS; SAINT LUCIA; SENEGAL; SEYCHELLES; SIERRA LEONE; SINGAPORE; 
SOUTH AFRICA; SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF 
TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU; TANZANIA; THAILAND; TOGO; TUNISIA; 
TÜRKIYE; UGANDA; UKRAINE; UNITED KINGDOM; URUGUAY; THE BOLIVARIAN 
REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA; VIET NAM; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE 
(WT/DSB/W/609/REV.23)  ................................ ................................ ..............................  6 
 
 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF I MPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan : Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 31) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.206) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.169) 
 
D. United States – Anti-dumpi ng and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/A dd.53) 
 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China : Status report by the  United States (WT/DS471/17/A dd.45) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.40 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.40) 
 
 
1.1.  The Chairperson  noted that there were six sub -items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU . As Members  recall ed, 
Article  21.6 require d that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall  be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB 's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved ." Under this Agenda item, she invite d delegations to provide 
up-to-date information about their compliance efforts . She also  remind ed delegations that, as 
provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings : "Representatives should make 
every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on any issue that has already 
been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have been no change in Members ' 
positions already on record. " WT/DSB/M/4 70 
 
- 3 - 
 
  A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 31) 
1.2.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 31, which contained the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concer ning US  anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan . 
1.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 12 September 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU . The United States 
had addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of 
anti-dumping margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect 
to the recommendations of the DSB that had yet to  be addressed, the US Administration would 
confer with the US Congress with respect to the appropriate statutory measures that would resolve 
this matter.  
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thank ed the United States for the latest status 
report and the statement made at the present meeting . Japan,  once again , called on the United 
States to fully implement the DSB recommendations and rulings so as to resolve this matter.  
1.5.  The DSB took note  of the stat ements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act : Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add. 206) 
1.6.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add. 206, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act . 
1.7.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had pro vided a status report 
in this dispute on 12 September 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The US 
Administration would continue to confer with the European Union, and with the US Congress, in 
order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution o f this matter . 
1.8.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union thank ed the United 
States for its status report and its statement made at the present meeting . The European Union  
referred to its previous statements  and wished to resolve  this case as soon as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 69) 
1.10.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add. 169, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affe cting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products . 
1.11.   The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union recall ed that the EU 
approval system was not covered by the DSB 's recommendations and rulings. The EU continue d to 
propose for vote authorisations for genetically modified organisms that, in the European Food Safety 
Authority 's (EFSA) risk assessment, ha d been concluded to be safe. All applications for food and 
animal feed uses that had been  presented in the Commit tees previously  in 2022  had been  adopted. 
All those genetically modified organisms had gone through a comprehensive and stringent 
authorisation procedure, including a favourable scientific assessment by the EFSA. 
1.12.   The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union for its status report and 
its statement at the present meeting. The United States  continued to engage with the European 
Union on these issues, and had provided recommendations on several occasions as to how the 
European Union could address the undue delays in its approval procedures. The United States had WT/DSB/M/4 70 
 
- 4 - 
 
  described those problems in detail and noted its concerns with the European Union's biotech approval 
procedures monthly in the DSB and during the semi -annual US -EU biotech consultat ions. The United 
States again requested that the European Union move to issue final approvals for all products that 
had completed science -based risk assessments at the European Food Safety Authority, including 
those products that were with the Standing Com mittee and Appeals Committee . 
1.13.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add. 53) 
1.14.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 53, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea . 
1.15.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a 
status  report in this dispute on 12 September 2022, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 
6 May 201 9, the US Department of Commerce published a notice in the US Federal Register 
announcing the revocation of the anti -dumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of large 
residential washers from Korea (84 Fed. Reg. 19,763 (6 May 2019)). With this act ion, the United 
States had completed implementation of the DSB recommendations concerning those anti -dumping 
and countervailing duty orders. The United States would consult with interested parties on options 
to address the recommendations of the DSB relati ng to other measures challenged in this dispute .  
1.16.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea thank ed the United States for its status report 
and its statement at the present meeting . Korea again urge d the United States to take prompt and 
appropriate steps to implement the DSB recommendations for the "as such " measures at issue in 
this dispute .  
1.17.   The representative of Canada  said that Canada wishe d to refer to its statement made under  
this Agenda item at the 21 July 2022  DSB meeting.  
1.18.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add. 45) 
1.19.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add. 45, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerni ng certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings 
involving China . 
1.20.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 12 September 2022, in accordance with Article 21 .6 of the DSU. As explained 
in that report, the United States would consult with interested parties on options to address the 
recommendations of the DSB . 
1.21.   The representative of China  said that China thank ed the United States for its most recent  
status report as well as its statement made  at the present meeting . More than four years ha d passed 
since the expiry of the reasonable period of time,  but the United States had still fail ed to implement 
the adopted ru lings and recommendations in this dispute. China urged  the United States to take 
concrete action and meet its obligation s by bringing its measures into conformity without further 
delay.  
1.22.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matte r at its next regular 
meeting . WT/DSB/M/4 70 
 
- 5 - 
 
  F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 40 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 40) 
1.23.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 40 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 40, 
which contained the status report by Indonesia on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations in the case concerning importation of horticultural products, animals and ani mal 
products . 
1.24.   The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia submit ted this report pursuant to 
Article  21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia took note o f New Zealand's  and the United States'  concern s raised 
at the previous DSB meetings  and was fully commit ted to implement ing the recommendations and 
rulings o f the DSB i n this dispute . On measure 18 , concerning self -sufficiency, as stated in several 
DSB meetings, Indonesia reiterate d that all articles in the relevant laws that  had been  found to be 
inconsistent with WTO rules had been removed with the enactment of Law No.  11/2020 on Job 
Creation.  Regarding measure s 1 to 17, Indonesia had complied with the  recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB  through a series of significant adjustments of the releva nt Ministry of Agriculture 
and M inistry of Trade regulations. Indonesia ha d remov ed disputed measures such as : harvest period 
restriction, import realization requirements, six –months harvest requirement, reference price , and 
domestic purchase requirement . In response to the United States'  concern on commodity balance , 
Indonesia continue d to emphasize the positive impacts of this policy , which enable d Indonesia  to 
streamline permit processing and to provide clarity on permit timeframes , by using an integrated 
national database system that was connected in a transparent manner. Indonesia stood  ready to 
engage with New Zealand and the United States to resolve the issues in th ese disputes.  
1.25.   The representative of the United States  said that the United Sta tes continued to have concerns 
with Indonesia's compliance with the DSB's recommendations. The United States thanked Indonesia 
for responding to the US question about the ruling of Indonesia's Constitutional Court concerning 
the Omnibus Law on Job Creation  (No. 11/2020). That additional information would aid in the United 
States’ review of the Court's decision and its understanding of the law's effect. With respect to 
measures 1 -17, the United States would still appreciate further clarity on which regulatio ns presently 
comprised Indonesia's import licensing regimes and on any forthcoming regulations that would affect 
the regimes. With regard to the statement in Indonesia's latest status report that the commodity 
balance system was "to ensure the ease and cer tainty of doing business", the United States was 
interested to better understand how that would be the case. The United States would appreciate if 
Indonesia could provide more information on how commodity balancing would make doing business 
in Indonesia ea sier. The United States remained willing to work with Indonesia to fully resolve this 
dispute . 
1.26.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand thank ed Indonesia for its status 
report, and acknowledge d Indonesia 's commitment to comply fully with the  DSB's recommendations 
and rulings.  Both compliance deadlines ha d long since expired, and a number of measures remain ed 
non-compliant. New Zealand  thank ed Indonesia for the additional information provided in recent 
meetings, including in relation to the ob jective of Indonesia 's commodity balance mechanism as well 
as the impact of the Constitutional Court 's ruling on the Law on Job Creation (No. 11/2020). New 
Zealand was  assessing th at information and w ould revert with any additional questions on th ose and 
other matters. New Zealand look ed forward to constructive engagement with Indonesia on the 
outstanding issues.  
1.27.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. WT/DSB/M/4 70 
 
- 6 - 
 
  2  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; ANGOLA ; ANTIGUA 
AND BARBUDA; ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE 
OF BOLIVIA ; BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI ; CABO VERDE ; CAMBODIA; 
CAMEROON ; CANADA ; CENTRAL AFRI CAN REPUBLIC ; CHAD; CHILE ; CHINA ; COLOMBIA ; 
CONGO ; COSTA RICA ; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE ; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO ; 
DJIBOUTI ; DOMINICA; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ; ECUADOR ; EGYPT ; EL SALVADOR ; 
ESWATINI ; THE EUROPEAN UNION ; GABON ; THE GAMBIA ; GHANA ; GUATEMALA ; GUINEA ; 
GUINEA BISSAU ; HONDURAS ; HONG KONG, CHINA ; ICELAND ; INDIA ; INDONESIA ; 
ISRAEL ; KAZAKHSTAN ; KENYA ; REPUBLIC OF KOREA ; LESOTHO ; LIECHTENSTEIN ; 
MADAGASCAR ; MALAWI ; MALAYSIA ; MALDIVES ; MALI; MAURITANIA ; MAURITIUS ; 
MEXICO ; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ; MOROCCO ; MOZAMBIQUE ; NAMIBIA ; NEPAL ; NEW 
ZEALAND ; NICARAGUA ; NIGER ; NIGERIA ; NORTH MACEDONIA ; NORWAY ; PAKISTAN ; 
PANAMA ; PARAGUAY ; PERU; THE PHILIPPINES; QATAR ; RUSSIAN FEDERATION ; 
RWANDA ; SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS; SAINT LUCIA; SENEGAL ; SEYCHELLES ; SIERRA 
LEONE ; SINGAPORE ; SOUTH AFRICA ; SWITZERLAND ; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS 
TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU ; TANZANIA ; THAILAND ; TOGO; 
TUNISIA ; TÜRKIYE ; UGANDA ; UKRAINE ; UNITED KINGDOM ; URUGUAY ; THE BOLIVARIAN 
REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA ; V IET NAM ; Z AMBIA AND ZIMBAB WE 
(WT/DSB/W/609/REV. 23) 
2.1.  The Chairperson  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request 
of Mexico, on behalf of a number of delegations. She then drew attention to the proposal contained 
in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 23, and invited the representative of Mexico to speak . 
2.2.  The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 23, said that the delegations in question had agreed to  
submit the joint proposal, dated 12 September  2022, to launch the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body members. The countries in question  wished to welcome Saint Kitts 
& Nevis  as a new co -sponsor of th e proposal. On behalf of those 127 Members, Mexico wished to 
state the following. The extensive number of Members submitting the joint proposal reflected a 
common concern with the current situation in the Appellate Body that was seriously affecting the 
overall dispute settlement system,  against the best interest of its Members. WTO Members had a 
responsibility to safeguard and preserve the Appellate Body, the dispute settlement system, and the 
multilateral trading system. Thus, it was their duty to proceed, without further delay, with th e 
launching of the selection processes for the Appellate Body members, as submitted to the DSB at 
the present meeting. The proposal sought to: (i) start seven selection processes (one process to 
replace Mr  Ricardo Ramírez -Hernández, whose second term had e xpired on 30 June 2017; a second 
process to fill the vacancy result ing from the resignation of Mr  Hyun Chong Kim with effect from 
1 August  2017; a third process to replace Mr  Peter Van den Bossche, whose second term had expired 
on 11 December 2017; a fourt h process to replace Mr  Shree Baboo Chekitan Servansing, whose 
four-year term of office had expired on 30 September  2018; a fifth process to replace Mr  Ujal Singh 
Bhatia, whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; a sixth process to replace Mr  Thom as 
Graham whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; and a seventh selection process to 
replace Ms  Hong Zhao, whose first four -year term of office had expired on 30  November  2020); 
(ii) to establish a Selection Committee; (iii) to set a deadline of  30 days for the submission of 
candidacies; and (iv) to request that the Selection Committee issue its recommendation within 
60 days after the deadline for nominations of candidates. The proponents were flexible in the 
determination of the deadlines for th e selection processes, but Members should consider the urgency 
of the situation. The proponents continued to urge all Members to support this proposal in the 
interest of the dispute settlement and multilateral trading systems . 
2.3.  The representative of the United States  said that Members were aware of the long -standing US 
concerns with WTO dispute settlement. Those concerns remained unaddressed, and the United 
States did not support the proposed decision. The United States supported WTO dispute settlement 
reform and was working to achieve durable, lasting reform. The first step towards reform was to 
better understand the interests of all Members in WTO dispute settlement. A true reform discussion 
should aim to ensure that WTO dispute settlement reflected the real interests of Members, and not 
prejudge what a reformed system would look like. The United States was prepared for continued 
and deepened engagement with Members on that important issue. The United States and other 
Members had jointly issued WT/GC/244,  "The Joint Statement on Aggression by the Russian 
Federation against Ukraine with the Support of Belarus ", which condemned Russia's actions as a 
violation of international law, the UN Charter, and fundamental principles of international peace and WT/DSB/M/4 70 
 
- 7 - 
 
  security . The United States reiterated its support for Ukraine during this unimaginably difficult time 
and paid tribute to the heroism of the Ukrainian people, their armed forces and Leaders .  
2.4.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada s tood by the people of Uk raine and strongly 
condemn ed the unjustified and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by President  Putin. Th ose attacks 
were having a considerable humanitarian impact and were resulting in the senseless deaths of 
innocent people. This was not only about an attac k on Ukraine. It was about an attack on 
international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, as well as on democracy, freedom and 
human rights. Concerning the appointment of Appellate Body members, for over two and a half 
years the Appellate Bod y had no longer had a quorum and ha d been unable to hear new appeals. 
Canada support ed the statement made by Mexico at the present meeting  on behalf of the 
co-sponsors. Canada congratulate d Saint Kitts & Nevis for joining th e proposal. Canada  invite d WTO 
Members that  had not yet sponsored the proposal to consider joining the 127  Members requesting 
the launch of the selection process. The critical mass of WTO Members supporting th e proposal 
clearly reflect ed the importance that they all  attach ed to a f ully operational Appellate Body as an 
integral part of the dispute settlement system. Canada w ould continue to actively participate in 
solution -oriented discussions on the current  situation. In short, Canada's  priority remain ed finding 
a multilateral and l asting solution for all Members, including the  United States. Meanwhile, Canada 
and 24 other WTO Members ha d endorsed the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement 
(MPIA) as an emergency measure. This measure s ought to safeguard their rights to bi nding dispute 
settlement, including the possibility of appeal in disputes among themselves. The MPIA was open to 
all WTO Members. Canada  invite d all WTO Members to consider joining the MPIA to safeguard their 
dispute settlement rights to the maximum extent  possible until they collectively f ound a lasting 
solution to the impasse in the Appellate Body.  Canada st ood ready to discuss the MPIA with any 
interested Member.  
2.5.  The representative of China  said that China support ed the statement made  by Mexico on behalf 
of the 127 co -sponsors and call ed upon more Members to join this proposal. China  wished to refer 
to its previous statements made on this matter and reiterate d its firm commitment to an 
independent, impartial , and two -tier dispute settl ement system. The paralysis of the Appellate Body 
was not only incompatible with  the requirement stipulated in Article 17.2 of the DSU, but also posed 
serious challenges to the multilateral trading system. To urgently address this matter, Ministers at 
the Twelfth Ministerial Conference ( MC12 ) had provided Members  with a clear mandate to having a 
fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024. The task 
before them was to translate that political willingness into frank,  good-faith and outcome -oriented 
discussions. China welcome d the recent work among st Members and commend ed the progress made 
thus far. As always, China would  continue its active and constructive engagement with a view to 
breaking through the selection impa sse and fulfilling the mandate given by the Ministers at the 
earliest date.  
2.6.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil thank ed Mexico for presenting the proposal and 
welcome d Saint Kitts & Nevis  as a co-sponsor.  The large and growing number of co -sponsors of th e 
proposal clearly show ed, at the very least, that the vast majority of WTO Members were better 
served by the restoration of the dispute settlement system that all had agreed under the DSU th an 
by maintaining the current impasse. Having said that, Brazil was fully committed to the success of 
the informal discussions that were taking place in Geneva. Brazil was  engaged in th at process on 
the understanding that it was oriented towards quickly enabling meaningful negotiations in a manner 
that would effectively facilitat e the fulfilment of the mandate agreed by Ministers at MC12.  
2.7.  The representative of Ukraine  said that Ukraine remain ed a strong supporter of the proposals 
for the launch of the Appellate Body selection process es. Ukraine  support ed the statements of all 
co-sponsors of the proposal and believe d that th at issue should be addressed as a priority. Ukraine 
was ready to further engage in the ongoing discussion s and reiterate d that th at work should be 
based on agreed solutions. A t the same time, Ukraine also wished  to take the floor in order the say 
words of gratitude to every Member who  support ed Ukraine  in the present  difficult times. The present 
meeting marked  the 21 2th day of the Russian war , more than six months of Russian bl atant act of 
aggression against Ukraine through its brutal and unprovoked full -scale military invasion that 
affected Ukraine 's entire territory, result ing in the loss of thousands of lives, including children , and 
caused heavy damage to Ukraine 's infrastru cture and economy. Russia started a war not only with 
Ukraine – it challenged the whole world through its unprecedented violation of the fundamental 
principles of international peace and security. The multilateral trading system was suffering as well 
and Members all bore the responsibility to hold Russia accountable. Ukraine was very grateful to all WT/DSB/M/4 70 
 
- 8 - 
 
  Members that stood with Ukraine, and called on Members  not to remain indifferent and to continue 
to react to Russia's  blatant violation of international law.  
2.8.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand join ed other Members in 
condemning, unequivocally, the unprovoked and unjustified attack by Russia on Ukraine. Th ose 
actions were egregious and unlawful  – the act of aggression was strictly prohibited under 
international law, as was the targeting of civilians. Russia 's invasion of Ukraine 's sovereign territory 
had implications for global peace, security, and economic stability , deeply undermining the work of 
the DSB  and the multilate ral cooperation that underpin ned it. In relation to Agenda item 2, New 
Zealand reiterate d its support for the co -sponsored proposal and refer red to its previous statements. 
New Zealand welcome d the Ministerial Declaration agreed  at MC12, which recogni zed the importance 
and urgency of addressing the current  challenges and commit ted Members to discussions with the 
view to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 
2024. New Zealand  continue d to urge all Members to constructively engage on the issues with a 
view to addressing this situation as a priority.  
2.9.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China thank ed Saint Kitts & Nevis 
for co -sponsoring the proposal. Hong Kong, China wished  to reiterate its grave concern over the 
Appellate Body impasse and emphasize d its commitment to participate constructively in discussions 
currently underway to resolve the impasse. Hong Kong, C hina looked forward to working together 
with Members with a view to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible 
to all Members by 2024, as mandated in the MC12 Outcome Document.  
2.10.   The representative of Norway  said that a s the DSB work directly concern ed the upholding of 
the rules -based international order, he would  first address the situation in Ukraine. Norway 
continue d to strongly condemn Russia 's egregious military attack on its neighbour , Ukraine. Russia 's 
war of aggression ag ainst Ukraine constitute d a gross violation of international law, the rules -based 
system , which also underpin ned the WTO . That military aggression was a catastrophe for Ukrainians 
and Russians alike, and it was also hurting multilateral cooperation at a ti me when it was  needed 
more than ever. Norway  reiterate d its unwavering support for Ukraine 's sovereignty and territorial 
integrity within its internationally  recogni zed borders. With regard to the  Appellate Body 
appointments, Norway fully support ed the joint proposal presented by Mexico, and co -sponsored by 
127 Members, to launch the process for appointments to the Appellate Body, and welcome d the new 
co-sponsor Saint Kitts & Nevis. Although Norway  very much welcome d the ongoing informal 
discussions  among Members and would participat e constructively in those discussions  to address the 
current  impasse , Norway was  of the view that these discussions  did not prevent Members  from 
launching the process for appointments to the Appellate Body. Norway  also w ished to refer to its 
previous  statements made under this Agenda item.  
2.11.   The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand wished to echo the previous speakers in 
thanking and supporting Mexico for the statement made on behalf of the 12 7 co-sponsors . Thailand 
wished to refer to its previous statements made under  this Agenda item  and reiterate d its firm 
commitment to a compulsory, binding and impartial two-tier dispute settlement system . Long 
absence of a functioning Appellate Body ha d been affecting the right and ability of Members to have 
their disputes resolved in line with  the principles contained in the DSU  provisions.  Restoring a fully 
and well -functioning dispute settlement system was therefore a matter of urgency as Members had  
affirm ed by the commitment shared by all Members at MC12. Thailand look ed forward to continuing 
to work constructively with all Members to find a prompt  and practical  solution  and fulfil the mandate 
given by the Ministers.  
2.12.   The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t he United Kingdom continue d to condemn 
the Russian Federation 's unprovoked and premeditated invasion of Ukraine.  It was a gross violation 
of international law and the UN Charter, and a repudiation of the principles that every country ha d 
committed to uphold.  Pertinent to the work of the DSB , it demonstrate d a flagrant disregard for the 
rules-based system which underpin ned the WTO. Concerning this Agenda item, the United Kingdom 
continue d to support the lau nch of the process for appointments to the Appellate Body, and refer red 
to its previous statements made on this issue. The United Kingdom  noted that an increasing number 
of Members were co-sponsoring th e proposal, and, at th e present meeting in particular,  the United 
Kingdom  welcome d Saint Kitts & Nevis. The United Kingdom  also encourage d further Members to 
show their support. Having a fully and well -functioning WTO dispute settlement system remain ed an 
urgent priority for the United Kingdom. It was the best means of ensuring that the rules that 
Members had negotiated were respected, secur ing the fair resolution of disagreements and reducing WT/DSB/M/4 70 
 
- 9 - 
 
  recourse to unilateral measures. The United Kingdom  encourage d Members to continue to work 
together and progress ongoing discussions, with a view to reaching solutions that c ould command 
consensus.  
2.13.   The representative of Antigua and Barb uda, speak ing on behalf of the O rganization of Eastern 
Caribbean States (O ECS), said that  the OECS wished  to thank Mexico for bringing this matter before  
the DSB and  welcome d Saint Kitts  & Nevis as a new co -sponsor. Saint Kitts & Nevis was, of course , 
a member  State of the OECS and the OECS was working towards having all OECS member  States 
become co -sponsors of th is resolution. The OECS had spoken before on this item so at this time it 
simply wish ed to highlight the importance of the WTO 's two -tier dispute settlement system, its 
support for rules -based multilateralism, the need to have a fully functioning Appellate Body, and the 
need for a m ultilaterally agreed solution to this impasse . The OECS  wished to show its commitment 
to continue to engage constructively to find a solution to the crisis that was before Members . The 
OECS found it extremely unfortunate that the proper functioning of the DSB was being held hostage  
and, especially at a time when Members had  just had a successful MC12, believe d that this matter 
was actually damaging to the credibility of the WTO. The OECS was participat ing in the informal 
process to reform the dispute settle ment system, without prejudice and in good faith. The OECS 
also th ought  that the Ministerial Declaration (the Outcome Document ), which call ed for a fully 
functioning dispute settlement system by 2024 , ought to be given priority. The OECS also referred 
to its previous statements made on this matter.   
2.14.   The representative of Japan  said that, a t the outset, Japan wished  to echo other  delegations  
condemning Russia. Russia 's aggression against Ukraine clearly infringe d upon Ukraine 's sovereignty 
and territorial integrity, constitute d a serious violation of international law prohibiting use of force, 
and was a grave breach of the United Nations Charter. Japan w ould never accept a unilateral change 
of the status quo by force and condemn ed the actions in  the strongest terms. This was an extremely 
serious situation that sh ook the very foundations of the international order not only in Europe but 
also in Asia. Japan remain ed stand ing in solidarity with Ukraine and the people of Ukraine and 
continue d to coop erate with the Members of the international community , including G7 Members , to 
improve the situation. Turning to Agenda item 2, Japan wished to refer to its statements made at 
previous DSB meetings and support ed the joint proposal. Japan absolutely share d a sense of urgency 
for reform of the dispute settlement system. Every WTO Member, as the owner of the system, had 
to take seriously the present  situation of the Appellate Body. Members'  utmost priority was to 
achieve a reform that w ould contribute to a long -lasting solution to the structural and functional 
problems of the dispute settlement system. Therefore, Members should discuss the reform, including 
how to address concerns surrounding the Appellate Body. Japan spare d no efforts to coll aborate with 
all WTO Members in discussions to that end .  
2.15.   The representative of the European Union  recalled  that the European Union stood firmly with 
Ukraine. The European Union would continue to provide firm support for Ukraine's overall economic, 
militar y, social and financial resilience, including humanitarian aid. The European Union resolutely 
condemned Russia's indiscriminate attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure. The European 
Union urged Russia to immediately and unconditionally withdr aw all of its troops and military 
equipment from the entire territory of Ukraine, within its internationally recogni zed borders. 
International humanitarian law, including on the treatment of prisoners of war, had to be respected. 
Ukrainians who had been fo rcibly removed to Russia had to be immediately allowed to return safely. 
Russia, Belarus and all those responsible for war crimes and the other most serious crimes would be 
held to account for their actions, in accordance with international law. With regar d to Agenda item 2, 
the European Union wished to refer to its previous statements made on this issue and thank ed all 
Members that ha d co-sponsored the proposal to launch the AB appointment processes.  The European 
Union noted that s ince 11 December 2019, the WTO had no longer guarantee d access to a binding, 
two-tier, independent and impartial resolution of trade disputes.  A well-functioning WTO dispute 
settlement system was critical for a rules -based multilateral trading system. This  was why the most 
urgent area of WTO reform involve d finding an agreed basis to restore such a system and proceeding 
to the appointment of the members of the Appellate Body. This task should be addressed as a 
priority. As the European Union had consistentl y noted, WTO Members ha d a shared responsibility 
to resolve this issue as soon as possible, and to fill the outstanding vacancies as required by 
Article  17.2 of the DSU. The E uropean Union  agree d that a meaningful reform was needed in order 
to achieve th at objective. The E uropean Union  would continue to engage constructively in finding, 
through reform, a lasting solution to the current situation regarding appointments to the Appellate 
Body. There was a pressing need to advance work  in this regard.  The Europ ean Union wa s pleased 
to participate  in the ongoing discussion process in Geneva. In line with the Outcome Document WT/DSB/M/4 70 
 
- 10 - 
 
  concerning MC12 , the objective of any discussions should be to have a fully and well -functioning 
dispute settlement system by 2024 at the la test.  
2.16.   The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland join ed other delegations in 
condemning Russia 's military aggression against Ukraine in the strongest  possible  terms. Such 
aggression blatantly violate d international law, most notably the prohibition on the use of force and 
the principle of the territorial integrity of States. Switzerland call ed on Russia to honour its 
international obligations, reconsider its actions, withdraw its troops and help de -escalate the 
situation. Switzerland call ed on all actors to respect international law, in particular international 
humanitarian law. Regarding the Agenda item in question, Switzerland wished  to refer to its 
statements made on this matter at previous DSB meeti ngs. Switzerland commen ded Saint Kitts & 
Nevis for co-sponsoring the joint proposal. A fully operational dispute settlement system was in 
everyone 's interest. Switzerland w ould continue to engage constructively in the ongoing discussions, 
and urge d Members  to commit to ensuring a fully functioning dispute settlement system by 2024, 
as set out in the MC12 Outcome Document.  
2.17.   The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia thank ed Mexico for presenting the joint 
proposal on behalf of the 127 co-sponsors and welcome d Saint Kitts  & Nevis as the latest co -sponsor . 
Indonesia wished to invite other Members to positively consider joining as co -sponsors in their 
common efforts to having a well and fully functioning  WTO dispute settlement system by 2024 , as 
mandated at MC12 . While referring to its previous  statements, Indonesia w ished to again  reiterate 
the urgency of solving the current impasse of the Appellate Body, to restore predictability and 
security to the multilateral trading system . Members shoul d proceed without further delay with the 
launching of the selection process es of the Appellate Body members . Indonesia welcome d ongoing  
discussion s among Members  on DS reform  that w ould complement such efforts . Indonesia  had been 
actively engaged in th ose discussion s. Indonesia  stated its fervent commitment to work ing together 
with all Members and urge d all WTO Members to work and engage in a constructive manner to find 
a permanent solution  in order  to restore a fully functioning dispute settlement system w ithin the 
mandated time -frame.  
2.18.   The representative of Singapore  said that  Singapore thank ed Mexico for its statement , which 
Singapore  strongly support ed. Singapore  warmly welcome d Saint Kitts  & Nevis as the latest 
co-sponsor of th e proposal and look ed forward to all OECS members eventually joining  it. Singapore  
reiterate d its previous statements made on  the importance and urgency of this matter. Singapore 
was committed to participating constructively and with an open mind in ongoing  discussions on 
dispute settlement reform, with a view to achieving results by 2024 .  
2.19.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea join ed others in strongly condemning Russia 's 
armed invasion against Ukraine as a violation of principles of the UN Charter an d international law.  
The use of force that cause d innocent casualties c ould not be justified under any circumstances.  
Ukraine 's sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence had to  be respected. As for the item at 
hand, Korea thank ed Mexico for its statement and reiterate d its support for the joint proposal.  Korea  
welcome d Saint Kitts & Nevis as a new co -sponsor and wished to refer to  its previous statements 
made on this issue. Like other Members,  Korea st ood ready to constructively engage in relevant 
discussions on a durable solution to enhance the functioning of the WTO dispute settlement system , 
with a view to accommodating the needs of WTO Members.  In this regard, Korea very much  
welcome d the relevant discussions that were currently  underway on dispute settlement reform , and 
highly value d the MC12 Outcome Document as paving the way to ensur ing a fully and 
well-functioning dispute settlement system by 2024 . 
2.20.   The representative of Peru said that Peru thank ed Mexico for  the joint proposal  submitted on 
behalf of the 127 co -sponsors and welcome d the new co -sponsor , Saint Kitts & Nevis. Peru wished 
to reiterate that it was committed to the re -establishment of a ful ly operational dispute settlement 
system at the WTO , in order to add stability, predictability , and security to the multilateral trading 
system. In this regard , Peru deemed  it urgent to begin the selection process es in order to appoint 
new members of the A ppellate Body as soon as possible. For Peru, as a developing country, it was 
essential to have a binding dispute settlement system that was effective, impartial , and fully 
functional . However, t his would  not be possible if Members did not move forward with the selection 
of Appellate Body members , which ha d not happened for two years. Peru appeal ed to all Members 
to accord due urgency to this matter in order to reach a prompt solution , particularly given the 
mandate that all Members had received during the MC12.  WT/DSB/M/4 70 
 
- 11 - 
 
  2.21.   The representative of Nigeria , speaking  on behalf of the African Group , said that  the African 
Group wished  to refer to its previous statements  made on this matter. The African Group  commend ed 
the delegation of Mexico for their leadership under this Agenda item. The African Group  also joined 
others in welcoming the new co -sponsor Saint Kitts & Nevis. The African Group reiterate d its support 
for an independent and impartial dispute settlement system that was accessible to all Member s. The 
fact that the Appellate Body c ould not hear new appeals remain ed a concern. The African Group 
urged Members  to urgently fulfil its obligation under the DSU , which i nclude d the launch of the 
selection process  to fill the Appellate Body vacancies , so as to maintain the two -tiered dispute 
settlement system . The overwhelming number of Members asking for the launch of the selection 
process indicate d the importance for the multilateral trading system  of having a fully functioning 
dispute settlement system.  Finally, the African Group stood  ready to engage constructively in future 
discussions so as to address the specific concerns raised against the functioning of the Appellate 
Body, with a view to finding a solution. However, th ose discussi ons should not delay the launch of 
the selection process es to fill the vacancies of the Appellate Body members. The African Group  
therefore urge d all Members who were yet to co -sponsor this proposal to do so as soon as possible . 
2.22.   The representative of Iceland said that a  fully functional dispute settlement system was 
directly connected to the upholding of the rules -based international order, which ha d been seriously 
undermined by the unprovoked attack of the Russian Federation on Ukraine. Russia' s action s violated 
international law  and the UN Charter , and undermine d the international order and norms that th e 
WTO was  based on. Iceland join ed others in condemning, in the strongest possible terms , the brutal, 
unjustified, and unprovoked attack of the Russian Fed eration on Ukraine,  and reiterate d its 
unwavering support for the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Ukraine, within its 
international ly-recogni zed borders . Iceland stood  in solidarity with the people of Ukraine. As for 
Agenda  item 2 , Iceland reiterate d its support for the co -sponsored proposal on Appellate Body 
appointments and refer red to its previous statements on this issue. Iceland  welcome d the MC12 
commitment to purs ue reform with the aim of having a fully functional dispute settlement system in 
place by 2024. Iceland view ed a two -tier, independent, and impartial WTO dispute settlement 
system as a key feature providing predictability and securing a fair playing field for all participants 
of the multilateral trading system. Iceland  welcome d the new co -sponsors and call ed on all Members 
to engage constructively and with an open mind while addressing this important issue.  
2.23.   The representative of Malaysia  said that Malaysia thank ed Mexico for presenting the proposal 
on behalf of the co -sponsors and support ed the statement made by Mexico.  Malaysia  warmly 
welcome d Saint Kitts & Nevis as a new co -sponsor of the proposal. Malaysia strongly viewed the 
dispute settlement system, in cluding the Appellate Body, as the most critical matter that require d 
the urgent attention of the Membership. Malaysia st ood ready to support the work to restor e a 
functioning dispute settlement system  and to proceed with the appointment of the A ppellate Body 
members. Malaysia  also wished to refer to its statements made  at previous DSB meetings under this 
Agenda item .  
2.24.   The representative of  the Philippin es said th at, as a co-sponsor of the proposal in 
WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.23 , led by Mexico, the Philippines ha d always been a true friend of the WTO 
system and its dispute settlement system , and embrace d reforms and change for the better , 
including that of the Appellate Bo dy. The Philippines wished to  thank Mexico for its statement and 
welcome d Saint Kitts & Nevis as a new co -sponsor of th e proposal. The Philippines  viewed the 
proposal as a positive step towards re forming the WTO  dispute settlement system by 2024. A 
comprehensive review of the dispute settlement system had to include a frank discussion of the 
Appellate Body, its continued impasse , and prospects for its future operation. The Philippines  foresaw 
and envision ed a WTO  dispute settlement system which would be  truly stable, multilateral, 
resolution -oriented, development -focused, comprehensive , and efficient , with enforceable results 
and predictable compliance processes within the WTO system. The Philippines  believe d that 
Members, by coming together at the present  meeting  and in the previous few months, share d that 
overarching vision and were ready to discuss their concerns with open minds , and to compromise. 
The Philippines hoped  that with their collective resolve to flesh out issues affecting the dispute 
settlement system and the Appellate Body, Members would be  able to start working on the reforms 
that they wished for , and they should  start with the appoint ment of Appellate Body members. The 
Philippines  urged other Membe rs to remain open -minded and to engage and give reform a chance.  
2.25.   The representative of Australia  said that  Australia join ed others in continuing to condemn in 
the strongest terms Russia 's illegal, unjustified and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. As Ukraine ha d 
stated , the present meeting marked 212 days since Russia 's attack on Ukraine, and the reason they WT/DSB/M/4 70 
 
- 12 - 
 
  continue d to raise this issue in this forum was because Russia 's actions were a continuing violation 
of international law and the fundamental inte rnational norms on which organisations such as the 
WTO were based. Australia  continue d to stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine. Turning  to 
Agenda item 2, Australia wished  to stress the importance of continuing to advance substantive 
discussions o n dispute settlement reform. Members  all ha d a stake  in preserving a secure and 
predictable multilateral trading system and had to  work together to resolve the functionality of the 
system as soon as possible. Australia  continue d to encourage Members to app roach dispute 
settlement reform  discussions in a constructive and pragmatic manner to achieve their objective of 
having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by 2024.  
2.26.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that t he Russian Federation wished to refer 
to its previous statements and thank ed Mexico and  the co-sponsors for their continuous and faithful 
commitment to the appointment processes of the Appellate Body members. Russia wished  to warmly 
welcome Sain t Kitts & Nevis as a new co -sponsor. Russia reiterate d its strong support for launching 
the appointment processes immediately. In th at vein, considering the WTO Members ' commitment 
expressed in paragraph 4 of the MC12 Outcome Document , as of 17 June 2022, Russia call ed upon 
all Members to engage in urgent constructive discussions towards a fully functioning dispute 
settlement system as soon as possible. Such discussions should  be transparent, inclusive, and had 
to address the interests of all Members. To ad dress certain political declarations made by some WTO 
Members at the present meeting , he wished  to stress the following. First, Members  should  keep to 
the Agenda of the present meeting, circulated on 21 September 2022 , in document WT/DSB/W/705 , 
which had been  adopted at the present meeting . The political discussions suggested by some WTO 
Members d id not concern the surveillance of implementation of the adopted recommendations under 
Article 21.6 of the DSU. They also d id not address the Appellate Body appointments problem. 
Second, the DSB had  its own tasks and mandate expressed in different provisions of the DSU . None 
of the political issues raised by some WTO Members was within the competence of the DSB. Third, 
and ultim ately, the WTO was not a political organization and Members  should  refrain from trying to 
address issues there that were not in the competence of the Organization. Russia consider ed that 
one of the root causes of the crisis of the multilateral trading syst em that Members were  facing were 
the actions that blocked the Appellate Body appointments as well as the attempts to politicize the 
WTO that Members had  heard at the present meeting . Russia encourage d WTO Members to focus 
on resolving the problems they already ha d and not create new ones, unless any WTO Member ha d 
an intention to continue to destroy the multilateral trading system further.  
2.27.   The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the 12 7 co-sponsors, regretted that for 
the fifty-eighth  occasion, Members had still not been able to start the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body, and had thus continuously failed to fulfil their duty as Members of 
the WTO. The fact that a Member may have  concerns about certain aspects  of the functioning of the 
Appellate Body could not serve as a pretext to impair and disrupt the work of this body and dispute 
settlement in general. There was no legal justification for the current blocking of the selection 
processes, which was causing co ncrete nullification and impairment for many Members. As 
Article  17.2 of the DSU clearly stated, "vacancies shall be filled as they arise". No discussion should 
prevent the Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully and Members shall comply with their  
obligation under the DSU to fill the vacancies. The co -sponsors noted with deep concern that by 
failing to act at the present meeting, the Appellate Body would continue to be unable to perform its 
functions against the best interest of all Members.  
2.28.   The re presentative of Mexico  said that Mexico wished to refer to its previous statements made 
on this matter. Mexico wished to reiterate its concern regarding the prolonged impasse and the 
absence of a fully functioning dispute settlement system, which should be  resolved as a matter of 
priority. The increase at each meeting in the number of co -sponsors reflect ed the fact that a majority 
of Members consider ed this to be a  matter of urgency. This situation concern ed all Members, as all 
ongoing disputes were being a ffected, undermining the right to proceed to an appellate stage and 
putting at risk prompt compliance with, and adoption of, DS reports. Mexico  therefore stress ed the 
importance of the agreement reached at MC12 to have a fully functioning dispute settlemen t system 
accessible to all Members  by 2024. Mexico reiterate d its commitment to continuing to work 
constructively towards finding a real, multilateral solution and trust ed that Members w ould work 
together to resolve this situation as a matter of the utmost  urgency.  
2.29.   The Chairperson  thank ed all delegations for their statements. As in the past, the DSB w ould 
take note of the statements expressing the respective positions, which would be reflected in the 
minutes of the present meeting. Once again, she recall ed Members ' commitment at MC12 to conduct WT/DSB/M/4 70 
 
- 13 - 
 
  discussions with the view to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system accessible 
to all Members by 2024. It was her  understanding that informal discussions in thi s regard were 
currently ongoing amongst delegations, and she hoped that, going forward, Members w ould be able 
to find a solution to this matter.  
2.30.   The DSB took note  of the statements . 
__________